Empirical evaluation of Uncertainty Quantification in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models for Science

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable achievements in natural language processing tasks, producing high-quality outputs. However, LLMs still exhibit limitations, including the generation of factually incorrect information. In safety-critical applications, it is important to assess the confidence of LLM-generated content to make informed decisions. Retrieval Augmented Language Models (RALMs) is relatively a new area of research in NLP. RALMs offer potential benefits for scientific NLP tasks, as retrieved documents, can serve as evidence to support model-generated content. This inclusion of evidence enhances trustworthiness, as users can verify and explore the retrieved documents to validate model outputs. Quantifying uncertainty in RALM generations further improves trustworthiness, with retrieved text and confidence scores contributing to a comprehensive and reliable model for scientific applications. However, there is limited to no research on UQ for RALMs, particularly in scientific contexts. This study aims to address this gap by conducting a comprehensive evaluation of UQ in RALMs, focusing on scientific tasks. This research investigates how uncertainty scores vary when scientific knowledge is incorporated as pretraining and retrieval data and explores the relationship between uncertainty scores and the accuracy of model-generated outputs. We observe that an existing RALM finetuned with scientific knowledge as the retrieval data tends to be more confident in generating predictions compared to the model pretrained only with scientific knowledge. We also found that RALMs are overconfident in their predictions, making inaccurate predictions more confidently than accurate ones. Scientific knowledge provided either as pretraining or retrieval corpus does not help alleviate this issue. We released our code, data and dashboards at https://github.com/pnnl/EXPERT2.

NuclearQA: A Human-Made Benchmark for Language Models for the Nuclear Domain

As LLMs have become increasingly popular, they have been used in almost every field. But as the application for LLMs expands from generic fields to narrow, focused science domains, there exists an ever-increasing gap in ways to evaluate their efficacy in those fields. For the benchmarks that do exist, a lot of them focus on questions that don't require proper understanding of the subject in question. In this paper, we present NuclearQA, a human-made benchmark of 100 questions to evaluate language models in the nuclear domain, consisting of a varying collection of questions that have been specifically designed by experts to test the abilities of language models. We detail our approach and show how the mix of several types of questions makes our benchmark uniquely capable of evaluating models in the nuclear domain. We also present our own evaluation metric for assessing LLM's performances due to the limitations of existing ones. Our experiments on state-of-the-art models suggest that even the best LLMs perform less than satisfactorily on our benchmark, demonstrating the scientific knowledge gap of existing LLMs.